FY 2012 Appropriation for U.S. Geological Survey

Share This

Publication date:

21 December 2011

Number:

151

Congress and the President have agreed on a final FY 2012 appropriations bill. H.R. 2055 combines nine funding bills, and is accompanied by House Report 112-331. This 1,385 page report contains the bill language and a second section with the appropriators’ recommendations. The following is a selection of the report’s recommendations for the U.S. Geological Survey, starting on page 1058, with specific funding levels starting on page 1099.

Total USGS:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $1,083.7 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $1,117.9 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $1,069.7 million, a decline of $14.0 million or 1.3 percent.

The report states:

“The detailed allocation of funding by activity and sub-activity is included in the table at the end of this statement [see page 1099] and comports with the requested budget structure realignment. Unless otherwise indicated below, the conferees have accepted the proposals for reductions resulting from Department-wide efficiencies, administrative savings, and Enterprise Publishing Network savings. A decrease of $2,172,000 to the request has been assumed to reflect changes in the final fiscal year 2011 operating plan, which was not available at the time the request was submitted. Support for ecosystem restoration activities throughout the Survey's programs is maintained at the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. Additional changes to the request are specified below.”

The following programs are under Surveys, Investigations, and Research:

Ecosystems:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $160.8 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $166.4 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $161.5 million, an increase of $0.7 million or 0.4 percent

The report states:

“Increases above the enacted level include $1,500,000 for The Chesapeake Bay Executive Order and $2,500,000 for the Great Lakes Asian Carp Control Framework. The conferees support the President's budget proposal to conduct an in-depth analysis of the extent and sources of endocrine disrupting chemicals impacting fish and wildlife in the Chesapeake basin.”

Climate and Land Use Change:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $138.1 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $106.4 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $144.3 million, an increase of $6.2 million or 4.5 percent

There was fairly extensive report language about Climate Variability and Land Use Change:

“The bill provides $144,320,000 for Climate and Land Use Change programs. Within Climate Variability, changes to the request include decreases of $2,000,000 from Research and Development, and $6,460,000 from Science Support for DOI Bureaus. Carbon Sequestration is funded at $9,000,000.

“Within Land Use Change, an increase of $11,500,000 is provided to complete funding for Landsat 8 ground operations development. The conferees have not agreed with the proposal to create a separate ‘Land Imaging’ account and have instead maintained funding for all satellite operations within this subactivity. Estimated administrative savings assumed in the proposed new account have been assumed within the Land Use Change account instead.

“The conferees have not agreed to transfer budgetary authority for the launch of Landsat satellites 9 and 10 from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the Survey. Of the requested $48,000,000 increase for its implementation, the conferees have provided $2,000,000 for program development only. The conferees note that future requests for the project are estimated by the Administration to escalate to over $400,000,000 by fiscal year 2014. There is little doubt that resources will not be available within the Interior Appropriations bill to support these very large increases without decimating all other Survey programs. The conferees note that the launch of Landsat 9 is not scheduled until 2018. This allows time in the year ahead for all interested parties to re-examine how to proceed with future Landsat missions. In the conferees' view this would be a prudent step, inasmuch as the current budget proposal is based on a report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued in 2008, and both technological advances and a vastly different economic environment may point to other, less costly, options for obtaining Landsat data.”

Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $99.9 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $88.5 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $96.4 million, a decrease of $3.5 million or 3.5 percent.

The report states:

“The following amounts have been restored to ongoing programs that were proposed to be reduced in the request: $250,000 for the Minerals External Research Program; $5,000,000 for Minerals Resources; $1,000,000 for Energy Resources; $500,000 for Contaminants; and $2,500,000 for Toxic Substances Hydrology. An increase of $1,000,000 is provided for the New Energy Frontier initiative.”

Natural Hazards:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $136.0 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $133.9 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $134.7 million, a decrease of $1.3 million or 1.0 percent

The report states:

“The conferees have not agreed to proposed reductions in the request and have restored funds to the following programs: $2,000,000 for Earthquake Grants; $1,800,000 for the 2012 Multi-Hazards Initiative; and $1,500,000 for the National Volcano Early Warning System. Decreases from the request include $800,000 from the 2011 Multi-Hazards Initiative, and $3,000,000 from Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.”

Water Resources:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $212.4 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $199.6 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $215.0 million, an increase of $2.6 million or 1.2 percent

The report states:

“Funding has been restored for the following programs that were proposed to be reduced in the request: $2,000,000 for Groundwater Resources; $6,049,000 for the National Water Quality Assessment Program; $1,963,000 for the Cooperative Water Program; and $6,500,000 for the Water Resources Research Act Program. A program increase of $2,846,000 above the request is provided for the National Streamflow Information Program. Decreases from the request include $2,500,000 from the WaterSMART initiative within Hydrologic Networks and Analysis. The conferees encourage the Survey to include with its fiscal year 2013 budget request a proposal to establish a national groundwater monitoring network as authorized by the Secure Water Act.”

Core Science Systems:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $113.0 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $105.9 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $106.9 million, a decrease of $6.1 million or 5.4 percentThe report states:

“Increases to the request include $998,000 for the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program to continue funding at the current year enacted level, and $1,500,000 for National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Federal and State Partnerships to partially restore the proposed reduction to that program. Decreases from the request include $500,000 from WaterSMART.”

Administration and Enterprise Information:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $118.7 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $116.6 million The FY 2012 appropriation is $110.4 million, a decrease of $8.3 million or 7.0 percent

The report states:

“There is a decrease from the request of $5,920,000 for separation costs. This amount is significantly below what the Survey would need to implement its proposed reduction in force. If a similar plan is put forward in future budget requests, the conferees expect that sufficient funds will be requested for its implementation.”

Facilities:

The FY 2011 appropriation was $104.7 million The FY 2012 Administration request was $100.8 million }The FY 2012 appropriation is $100.6 million, a decrease of $4.1 million or 3.9 percent

The report states:

“The conferees do not agree with the administration's proposal to create a separate ‘Construction’ line item within the budget and consequently have maintained those funds within the ‘Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement’ subactivity. In the conferees' view, the Survey has the authorities it requires to manage its facilities and space requirements within the current structure.”

The American Institute of Physics, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, advances, promotes and serves the physical sciences for the benefit of humanity.

We are committed to the preservation of physics for future generations, the success of physics students both in the classroom and professionally, and the promotion of a more scientifically literate society.